User Reviews

A central problem for all thrillers is that the need to find twist after clever twist means that stories escalate quickly into realms of implausibility; an apparently boring tale of low level corruption soon brings down the President of the United States. Which gives 'All the President's Men' a huge advantage over most thrillers, because this film (based on the Watergate incident in 1972) can tell such a story and support it on the basis that all of it is true. Director Alan Pakula, something of a conspiracy thriller specialist, here does a great job in adapting the book written by the journalists who broke the story: the film is never overly melodramatic, but is always tense, and although it has pair of heroes, we're left in no doubt of their selfish motivations as they work potential witnesses any way they can in their bid to nail the truth. Unlike most clichéd detective thrillers, the true nature of the crime is unknown (and arguably, remains unknown to this day), so even though we know what happened, there's an air of unpredictability to the story; reporters Woodward (played by Robert Redford) and Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) don't know what they are looking for, even though they are certain that (somewhere) it is there. The plot is nicely paced, and even dares to skip lightly over the eventual vindication of the journalist's hunches, preferring to concentrate on how it felt for them, chasing this huge story, over a mere historical reconstruction of President Nixon's demise. Indeed, although Nixon appears in this film, it's only on television, and played by himself. This means that what we don't get is a wider analysis: a theory as to the true motive of Nixon's actions is hinted at but nothing more; nor does the film tell us whether it regards his behaviour as a disgrace to modern politics, or an mere symptom of them. In this respect, Oliver Stone's (more fanciful) 'Nixon' makes an interesting companion piece. But as a complex, gripping and understated thriller, 'All the President's Men' has few equals. Truth is stranger than fiction indeed.

In today's world, "All the President's Men" is as timely as ever. And it's a great look at the importance of journalistic integrity at a time when it was important to be right, not first.

A meticulously made film, and Redford and Hoffman were at the heights of their careers and both so adorable! The cast was perfect, with Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat, Jason Robards as Ben Bradlee, Jack Warden - all brilliant.

The break-in, as we see, was a mess. In preparation for the break-in, someone had gone around the Democratic headquarters and put tape on all the doors so they wouldn't lock automatically. One of the first things you see is a guard finding one of the taped doors - that was the actual guard, and he was considered the hero of the night.

One of the Republican plans was that during the convention, a yacht with prostitutes would be nearby; the Republicans would lure delegates onto the yacht and then blackmail them later.

The interesting thing is how all of the people involved had no problem committing actual felonies - blackmail, embezzling, perjury, and one of the most powerful moments in the documentary is the TAPE of Nixon saying he knew where he could get a million in cash to pay people off. It was all like something out of The Sopranos, with John Mitchell threatening to put Katherine Graham's tit in a wringer if anything was published about him. Astonishing. And this was The White House.

Woodward and Bernstein were like dogs with a bone, beautifully shown here as they continually pursue a story originally thought of as a waste, later called a witch hunt, and finally above-the-title news.

I'm older now, obviously, than when Nixon resigned. It was hard for me to see him as a person then. Later on, transcribing his speeches and an interview - I realized that he was an amazing speaker, and his career had been absolutely brilliant. I pity him that he felt he had to do what he did. And then I remember his comments about Jews and artists on those tapes. A very complicated man who let his dark side take over.

The film doesn't dwell on that, but on what Redford wanted - the mechanics of the investigation itself, the grunt work that went into getting the story.

Some trivia: After this film, there was a large increase in the number of applicants to journalism schools. I'd like to point out that this took place after the movie - not the book.

We're in June 2017 and "All The Presiden's Men" from 1976 reminds us that film, sometimes, is the strongest historical document we've got. The Washington Post raising alarm signs then and now. Alan J Pakula is one of the greatest directors of his generation. Jane Fonda during her AFI Lifetime Achievement Award told us that working with Alan J Pakula was like dancing with Fred Astaire. Here the chemistry between Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman is such that, at times, it feels like a romantic comedy, warts and all. Astonishing. Hal Holbrook as Deep Throat gives the feeling of "thriller" to this incredible story. We know how the story ends but that doesn't diminish our nervousness that it's perhaps a bit of impatience, just like now in 2017, to see justice be done.

If you were to imagine yourself as a newspaper journalist, one of the best conspiracies you could ever find yourself stumbling upon would undoubtedly be the infamous Watergate Scandal. And reporters Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) were the two men who found themselves head-above-water in an elaborate cover-up that went all the way up the chain of command to the United States President himself.

On June 17th, 1972, Watergate hotel security guard Frank Wills spotted a possible break-in at the Democratic Party's National Committee. Some apparent CIA agents were arrested for breaking and entering, and later held at a trial, where Bob Woodward first found out that they were more than mere intruders. They worked for the government.

After researching into the matter, Woodward soon realized that one of the intruders had the name of a political figure scrawled in a notebook located within his shirt pocket.

And with the help of Carl Bernstein, a fellow Washington Post reporter (and a veteran of the field), Woodward followed the slight tracks, and the two men soon found themselves unearthing a shattering conspiracy that did indeed lead all the way up to President Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of America, himself.

Based on Woodward and Bernstein's own memoirs, William Goldman's Oscar-winning script makes for a brilliant subtle mystery; a true-life story as amazingly honest and forthright as it is entertaining and engaging. It would always remain the late Alan J. Pakula's greatest film, and its standing as one of the top films of all time on many various "great movies lists" is certainly merited.

It's a shame that both Hoffman and Redford were snubbed by the Academy Awards for their performances here. As Woodward and Bernstein, the two are amazingly convincing and bounce dialogue off of each other with striking clarity and realistic quality. Hoffman, who is top billed, appears in the film less than Redford, but gives just a performance just as amazing. He would gain an Oscar twelve years later for his portrayal of Raymond Babbitt in "Rain Man," his finest performance to date, but his role in "All the President's Men" is of a different caliber. Woodward and Bernstein are two complete opposites, and at first they rub each other the wrong way -- Bernstein, a veteran reporter, takes one of Woodward's articles and starts making revisions. "I don't mind what you did," Woodward says, "I just mind how you did it." Even though it's not anything special, this if my favorite scene in the movie, and perhaps the best example of just how well these two actors are able to bring their characters to life.

The movie is a mystery but not in the traditional sense. Almost all of us watching the film already know how the story is going to turn out, but the way it makes its dynamic revelations seem surprising and its story tense and exciting is one of the greatest examples of compelling filmmaking.

For the film's opening sequence, in which Woodward and Bernstein's condemning news is written on a typewriter, Pakula used sounds of gunshots to clarify each separate key of the device striking downwards. The 37th President of the United States of America was sentenced to a sort of death with the publishing of that article, and the bold gunshots add an extra depth and meaning to this fact.

"All the President's Men" has no hidden morals, messages, meanings. It's just a true story about something that happened, brought to life on the big screen by a great director, an influential screenwriter and two of the best actors of all time. No, it's not going to have you thinking after it's over, but if anything, it's the type of movie that will generate a lot of talk instead. And more often than not, that's a good thing.

5/5 stars.

• John Ulmer

The United States Of America lost its political innocence with the Watergate scandals. The effects of what happened starting with those burglars caught breaking into the Democratic headquarters of the Watergate Apartment complex and what came afterward will damage the national psyche for the next few centuries.

What always got me about Watergate is that it was so unnecessary for Richard Nixon's re-election. And that was what it was all about. Nixon was at the peak of popularity, he would have won in 1972 without all the shenanigans pulled by his Committee to Re-Elect the President. But in the possessed mind of Richard Nixon who saw enemies everywhere, it wasn't enough to just beat the Democratic opponent.

It was also why the Watergate scandal took hold, the motives behind it were strictly political, to re-elect the incumbent president. Iran/Contra never got the traction that Watergate got because in the final analysis it was about foreign policy differences. The motives if not pure were not tainted with partisanship either.

Films like Nixon with Anthony Hopkins and Nixon/Frost with Frank Langella give you a view of the man at the center of it all. Another rather skewered view of Watergate can be gotten from the film Born Again about Chuck Colson, one of the key players in Watergate. But this film is from the outside looking in. It takes two fairly new reporters from the Washington Post, Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein, covering the police beat of the Post who are in night court as the Watergate burglars are arraigned and slowly realize they could be sitting on the story of a lifetime.

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman are Woodward and Bernstein. Editor Ben Bradlee played by Jason Robards realizes that in the final analysis this is a crime story first and foremost. So rather than give it to some top political reporter, he lets Woodward and Bernstein run with it. It made their reputations down to today.

Director Alan J. Pakula made clever use of the color newsreel footage and interspersed it with the dramatic story. Through the newsreels the well known names and faces actually do become actors in the proceedings.

In fact despite the fact that Jason Robards won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor and Jane Alexander for playing the bookkeeper at the campaign headquarters got nominated for Best Supporting Actress, the key performance in the film in my opinion is that of Robert Walden who played Donald Segretti, a young attorney who became part of the White House plumbers dirty tricks squad. He's the only one of the Watergate principals who gets a full blown fictional portrayal here. He gives the Watergate scandal the face for the viewer and its not a pretty one.

All The President's Men missed the Best Picture Oscar and a Best Director for Alan J. Pakula. But it managed to win Oscars for Best Sound, Best Art&Set Direction and Best Adapted Screenplay besides the Oscar Robards won.

Both Redford and Hoffman who are a couple of name players as stars gave what would be subdued performances in the sense that they never allowed their star personas to interfere with the telling of the story. That's what makes All The President's Men such a lasting classic.

On June 17th, 1972 a security guard (Frank Willis) discovered a small piece of tape covering the latch on the basement door of the Headquarters of the National Democratic Committee in Florida. Calling for the police, they quickly arrested five well dressed burglars, one with $800 in his wallet. What few people knew was that these individuals would become the foundation of a massive conspiracy which involved the entire Federal community including the F.B.I, C.I.A. and other agencies working for the President of the United States. Attending the burglars at their court arraignment, rookie reporter Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) is astounded to learn one of the burglar's previously worked for the C.I.A. in the White House. The senior reporter who is later paired with him is 14 year veteran Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman). What transpires in the next three years will illuminate the secret illegal activities, covert operations and deep paranoia of the Nixon Administration. In this movie, audiences are privy to the workings of The Washington Post and the enormous efforts of these two Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. Jack Warden plays Harry M. Rosenfeld the Metroploitan editor who despite his own doubts believes in the future of the promising investigative journalists. Martin Balsam is Howard Simons and Jason Robards plays stanch Ben Bradlee, the Executive Editor of the Post. Even though they realized the risks involved, they stood their ground and allow the citizens of America to see the importance of a free press. In retrospect, America also learns of the immense risk and hazardous undertaking assumed by Woodward's 'invisible' source by the then Assistant Director of the F.B.I. 'Mark Felt' who has come to be known as "Deep Throat." (Hal Holbrook) With his invaluable help, Americas' press reveals how even a man so powerful as a sitting President must not be allowed to believe he is above the law. The film is a great example and tribute to men of the Forth Estate. Today it stands as a Classic movie in it's own right. ****

Rating: 9 out of 10. Directed by Alan Pakula. Robert Redford does a great job playing the role of journalist Bob Woodward. The more talented Dustin Hoffman gives an excellent performance as Carl Bernstein. I once heard that this movie is a good guide for 'how-to' and 'how-not-to' conduct investigative journalism.

The two journalists team up right after the Watergate burglars get arrested. They follow their own clues, but these tips only lead to dead ends, the puzzle is complicated. However, these Watergate burglars seem to be linked to the Republican Party and possibly to the White House.

Alan Pakula does an incredible job of keeping the movie suspenseful and intriguing. As the story progresses, the viewer feels deeply involved in how these two journalists uncover the conspiracy. The contrast between the two main characters adds to the movie. Redford as Woodward has a relaxed and charming approach, while Hoffman as Bernstein is more persistent and sometimes daring.

Woodward has a White House contact played by Hal Holbrook named 'Deep Throat' that he meets in 'Cloak and Dagger' style in a dark undercover parking lot, we never see his face clearly and he speaks in a rough rasping voice. 'Deep Throat' provides Woodward information in an indirect manner and keeps the journalists on the right track. This type of informant character has been replicated many times over in suspense movies and TV, especially on the TV series 'The X-Files'.

Jason Robarbs as Bill Bradlee, editor of 'The Washington Post' performs remarkably as boss of the newspaper. Constantly reminding Woodward and Bernstein to find good solid evidence, but he also gets frustrated when none of the informants will go on the record with what they know. Robarbs won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this role.

I never get bored with watching this movie. If you have not seen it before, treat yourself to a viewing.

This movie is okay. A lot of people said Spotlight came close to being as good as this, personally I found Spotlight a lot more high-stakes and exciting. This movie feels too much like an excerpt from a much larger story. Deep Throat is already a known associate of Woodward, most of the fallout from the story happens after the credits roll and a lot of what we see is the interviews with a myriad of supporting players we can't possibly remember.

Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford make a pretty good team, though I felt their working relationship was underwritten. Redford is too confident and assured to be the character constantly dismiss as a rookie. The acting makes up for it, especially the hard work the two great actors put in to memorising each others lines. This allows the two to constantly interrupt each other just like real journalists would when breaking this story. A feeling of scriptedness would have killed the magnetic atmosphere Pakula creates.

Of the supporting cast, there's not much to note (which is somewhat shocking considering that there's two Oscar nominees and a win in here). Jason Robards gets a few nice moments as Ben Bradlee, but he's got none of the depth John Slattery brought to Bradlee Jr. in Spotlight and certainly none of the drama brought by Burt Young and Burgess Meredith in Rocky, who Robards beat for the Oscar that year. Jane Alexander has one "oh yeah, I can see some acting there", but her eight minute part is incredibly forgettable and inexplicably nominated.

There's a couple of fantastic lines of dialogue, but for the most part the story is very difficult to follow. We're chasing this lead now, now we're chasing a guy who had something to do with the guy who had something to do with the thing we were just talking about. Pakula struggles to keep the energy up in low-tension scenes of Woodward and Bernstein chatting in restaurants or on porches, and especially during one too many "its not enough" scenes where the story gets rejected.

However, Pakula's direction of the Watergate infiltration in the opening is stunningly tense, I jumped at least twice. I loved the use of sound, whether it be the constant hammering of typewriter keys to keep energy up or the flicker of a cigarette lighter to get Woodward's attention. The cinematography of Gordon Willis is a key part of the film's suspense and high stakes, especially the gorgeous lighting (and lack thereof) on Deep Throat's face and the placement of Nixon addresses with Woodward and Bernstein working furiously in the background.

When the film closes, not a lot has been done. We don't get to see the fallout, only the procedure. I'd much rather re-read The Pelican Brief or watch Spotlight to see journalism at its most thrilling. What we get here is competent but a bit boring too often.

"All the President's Men" (1976) follows the investigation led by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) and Carl Bernstein (Dustin Hoffman) on the Watergate scandal, running parallel with President Nixon's campaign for reelection. As the two lead characters see their investigation unfold, hardly, must I say, they get banged down by your usual, but not quite so, "newspaper" drama : missing sources, pettiness of the story, abstinence and denial by the witnesses, lack of hard evidence and, above all, threat to the survival of the Post itself.

This is a gripping time piece. Almost half of the story is spent at the newspaper's offices, overshadowed by the permanent key-tapping of ardent typewriters and the constant chatter of young secretaries, which add a great sense of urgency and authenticity to a typical 1970s Washington workplace, where Woodward and Bernstein, sitting face-to-face in an odd, diagonal line that becomes a subtle symbol for a head-butting professional relationship, learn to first tolerate each other (and each other's egos) before uniting to unveil the truth. The interactions between Hoffman and Redford throughout the movie are as delightful to watch as they are crucial to making William Goldman's Academy Award-winning script reach its climax. We, as spectators, pay attention to these two very powerful actors' every word with such care and eagerness without even seeing through their banter and mistakes, breathing sighs of relief when catching a loose second and setting the alarm as the next one arrives. In the meantime, we get glimpses of written notes swinging in every direction from Woodward, mainly, creating a true journalistic feel, and enthralling conversations over the phone from both characters, desperately attempting to connect with not only the people behind the scandal, but also with the obscure situation on which they vainly light their lamps on, to a point where the phone becomes a mere extension of the hand and the absence of voice on the other end of the wire provokes an expression of total indifference. The story hides behind this progressive and discreet line of events without ever declaring "right" or "wrong", and plays with the writers' heads, leading them to frustration, unaided by the pressure of their superiors, the Metro News' supervisor Harry Rosenfeld (Jack Warden) and the Post's Ben Bradlee (Jason Robards, in a sublime performance).

The remainder of the movie explores Woodward and Bernstein's (or "Woodstein", as Bradlee once cries out, interrupting the high-pitched noise of the office for more than two seconds) attempts to force the truth (or, at least, parcels of it) out of various mouths (White House bookkeepers, attorneys, lawmen, you name it) and shows with true excitement the abusive paraphrasing and deduction the two men make with a less-than-minimal amount of words or simple nods from the speakers (or non-speakers). In fact, the two are so convinced of the story's credibility that they unequivocally trade sentences for common sense, really. This is where the movie falters; its will and urgency to depict these moments rapidly makes them seem trivial and forgettable. For instance, an "informant" of Woodward's ("Deep Throat", as they call him) only agrees to meet with him in a dark, underground parking, but the movie never truly gives his character the proper gravitas and importance that his name really bears, historically speaking.

Nevertheless, "All the President's Men" is the prototype of a solid and honest depiction of a historical event or, in this case, a more or less extended period of time marked by historical events. Alan J. Pakula's camera is turning around America's capital with remarkable ease, giving us the feeling that we have already been there, with Woodward and Bernstein, and capturing the charm of residential homes, the cacophony of midnight streets and the peacefulness of everyday places, such as libraries and diners. As already mentioned, the dynamics of the characters and of their relationships elevate the movie way above average, but the thoroughness to get the story "just the right way" makes it even greater. At some points during the movie, we are projected with real-time speeches from Nixon and his entourage or with journalistic coverage from 1972 and 1973 on a small television set in the office, further down the road from Woodward's small cabinet. As we exchange glances from the coverage on TV to Woodward's continuous typing, we take a step back and contemplate the successful effort of converting the broadcasted story into a much more intimate one.

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976) **** Dustin Hoffman, Robert Redford, Jason Robards, Jane Alexander, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden, Hal Holbrook, Ned Beatty. Superb adaptation of Washington Post's scathing historical expose by intrepid reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (played with energetic paranoia by Golden Boy and Dusty to perfection) on the infamous Watergate break-in and the ultimate downfall of the Nixon presidency with cover ups, cloak-and-dagger informant `Deep Throat', conspiracies and Washington as a fixed metaphor as a quagmire sucking down America's freedoms with only the dynamic duo as our only hope! Robards won a richly deserved Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his portrayal of crusty yet fair editor Ben Bradlee. Suspensefully directed by Alan J. Pakula. Look sharp for Polly Holliday (aka tv's `Flo') as a repellent secretary. Also won Oscars for Best Screenplay Adaptation by William Goldman, Art Direction and Sound. Alexander was nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

At the time of release when the Watergate was fresh in people's mind, the movie might have been a good summary of what happened... Now several decades ago, the watergate scandal is known, but the details got forgotten (especially for non-American)... Now the movie is unfortunately quiet dry set of not very interesting discussions....

I found it surprising how many reviewers here have based their vote on considerations that go beyond the film itself. We have the Republicans around who think that Nixon was treated unfairly by being forced to resign for Watergate, and that the attention the scandal and this film received are part of a left-wing bias in the American media. So they give it poor ratings. On the other side, you have those who think Watergate was an important part of American history, and that Bernstein and Woodward deserve the fame they got for their work. So they give the film high ratings. In my view, however, the film should be judged by itself, not by non-cinematic considerations of that sort.

Coming to that point, I believe that the film suffers from its pace, which is unbearably slow at some times and too fast at others. Much of the plot mostly depicts Redford and Hoffman interviewing people on the phone or in person, sometimes getting answers and sometimes not. While I, personally, do not expect a film to feature explosions and guns to be thrilling, I do believe that watching Robert Redford's telephone calls gets dull after the third or so time. Then, later on, when the investigations start to get traction, the pace becomes a bit too fast for the audience; names of people involved in various party or government institutions are flung around, making it hard to keep track of who is involved with whom in what manner. Towards the end, the film seems to surrender its difficult task of storytelling altogether, simply recounting the climax of the Watergate scandal by retelling it on a typewriter. That demonstrates, in my view, that the material makes for a good book, but is not really apt to be turned into a film.

As for the acting, Redford is doing an excellent job - he remains in character throughout the film, making you believe that this is how the real Woodward must have felt during the investigations. However, I feel that Hoffman remains rather clumsy, wooden, and awkward most of the time; he does not manage to involve the audience in the scenes in which he is a central figure.

In summary, while I acknowledge that this film has historical value for its close chronological link to Watergate itself (making, at the same time, the depiction of journalism and office work in the 1970s must be very realistic), I believe that much of the praise this film received is for the importance of the real-life events it depicts; its intrinsic cinematic quality is, in my view, rather mediocre.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.)

This dramatization of how it was discovered that the burglary of the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D. C. was funded and directed by the Nixon White House is a lot better than it has any right to be. Given the tedious, non-glamorous and frankly boring leg- and phone-work that is often the lot of the investigative reporter, it is surprising that this is a very interesting movie even if you don't care two beans about the Watergate scandal. In fact, this is really more about how the story was put together than it is about the scandal itself. It is also a lot less political than might be expected.

It stars Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, and they are good, with excellent support from Jason Robards (Oscar as Best Supporting Actor) playing Post Executive Editor Ben Bradlee, and Jane Alexander as an innocent caught up in the machinations. But what makes the movie work is the Oscar-winning script adapted from the Woodward and Bernstein best seller by that old Hollywood pro, William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid 1969, Misery 1990, etc.). What he does so very well, even though we know the outcome, is to establish and maintain the tension as Woodward and Bernstein run all over town chasing leads and misdirections. He accomplishes this by putting just enough varied obstacles in the path of our intrepid reporters, notably the Washington bureaucracy and the understandably cautious senior editors at the Post.

The direction by Alan J. Pakula (Comes a Horseman 1978, Sophie's Choice 1982, etc.) focuses the scenes nicely, keeps the camera where it belongs, and highlights the story with a shadowy Deep Throat (Hal Holbrook), skitterish sources, and a vivid recreation of a top American newspaper at work. I was especially enthralled to see the interactions among the reporters, the editors and the sources. I thought they all looked and sounded authentic, Redford's good looks having nothing to do with the story, which was right, and Hoffman's flair for the intense reigned in, which was necessary. The diffidence of Alexander's character and the soft pushiness of Woodward and Bernstein were tempered just right. Bradlee's stewardship of the story and his ability to take a calculated risk seemed true to life.

Some details that stood out: Redford's hunt and peck typing contrasted with Hoffman's all fingers flying; the talking heads on the strategically placed TVs, reacting (via actual video footage) to the developing story--deny, deny, deny! of course. The thin reporter's spiral notebooks being pulled out and then later flipped through to find a quote. The bright lights of the newsroom looking expansive with all those desks as though there were mirrors on the walls extending an illusion. The seemingly silly tricks to get a source to confirm: just nod your head; I'll count to ten and if you're still on the line... And you know what I liked best? No annoying subplot!

The rather abrupt resolution with the teletype banging out the leads to a sequence of stories that led to President Nixon's resignation had just the right feel to it, especially for those of us who have actually experienced the goosepimply sensation that comes with watching a breaking story come in over the teletype. The quick wrap-up surprised me, but delighted me at the same time.

Bottom line: an excellent movie that wears well, a fine example of some of Hollywood's top professionals at work some thirty years ago. #30

A perfectly executed 70s thriller based on true events, facts, evidence and performed with precision by two of the finest actors of their day and with a great supporting cast to boot.

Both frightening and alarming but probably not by today's standards where few things have the power to raise but a solitary eyebrow and, those in charge, at the highest level, seem impervious to the laws and traditions that affect the rest of us.

You know you're being watched, surveilled, spied upon - you might not know by whom or by what or when - but they know who you are and there's certainly nobody with a broad oesophagus standing in the shadows to help you out.

This could very well be the best political thriller ever made - in any event it is certainly the best of 1976! The account follows the painstakingly search for the truth behind the Watergate-scandal and the two relentless journalists Bernstein and Woodwards efforts to uncover the mystery. It is top-excitement from the first to the last frame, and it is my opinion that both Hoffmann and Redford do their very best work in this movie! The supporting cast is exceptionally good, including such solid actors as Martin Balsam, Jason Robards (he is fantastic!) and Jack Warden. The film is without any doubt the best work ever from acclaimed director Alan J. Pakula! You can watch this fabulous film again and again. It does not seem to date a bit!

Whenever I look at this film I am always struck by it for several different reasons. One is the fact that this is a look into the recent history of the United States. Thirty years ago, Richard Nixon and his shadow government was just one step away from totally destroying the two party system in this country and if it weren't for the expose' of Woodward and Bernstein American politics would be a lot different today. Also, this is a great detective story. The digging that WoodStein did showed that they were willing to do anything to get to the truth about what was going on. But perhaps the thing that really made this film great was the fact that this was a true story. Too bad that it only won three Oscars (best supporting actor Jason Robards, best adapted screenplay and art direction). This film was certainly miles ahead of what beat it out, the original Rocky.

Journalistic exploits of two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who broke the Watergate scandal in 1973 which eventually lead to President Nixon's downfall and resignation. Tough, talky, but fascinating chapter of political history benefits from the odd, disparate pairing of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, although Jason Robards got most of the kudos--and a Supporting Oscar--as newspaper editor Ben Bradlee (who is, unfortunately, turned into the very same character we've all seen sitting behind the police sergeant's desk in various crime pictures: barking at his minions to get the job done or else!). Alan J. Pakula, a director with an overwhelming sense of detail and structure, was a good choice to helm this project, but his rhythm is still doggedly slow. Excellent supporting cast includes Hal Holbrook, Jack Warden, Martin Balsam, and an extraordinary Jane Alexander. **1/2 from ****

"All the President's Men" is a film that would have played much, much better back in the 70s when it debuted. That is because most of the audience would have known who many of the folks were who were involved in the Watergate break-in and the subsequent attempt to derail the investigations. As a history teacher, I have a much better than normal knowledge of these people and events. But for the average viewer who isn't in their 60s, much of the film will be foreign to them and the names relatively unimportant. Now this does not mean it's a bad film for most viewers--but its impact is less-- especially since nowadays the idea of politicians being this corrupt is old news!

The film has a lot of high-powered actors--not just Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford (who, by the way, looks NOTHING like Bob Woodward) but the stellar supporting cast. Additionally, the film is appropriately tense and well directed. The only negative I felt that existed in the film is the montage-like ending which just felt a bit like a tack-on and could have been stronger. Still, well worth seeing.

A knowledge of the Watergate scandal isn't a prerequisite for watching this, as the film is not about the scandal per se, but the journalistic sleuthing that uncovered it. And yet the filmmakers quite reasonably assume a topical understanding of the surrounding events from the contemporary audience. They should be applauded for not patronizing the audience by filling in too much of this information. However, in 2021, swaddled in my utter ignorance of 1970s US politics, it does become a handicap. Watching two men grasping in the dark, when you yourself are in the dark, is not much fun. The movie's pacing is such that at times it moves very slowly before flinging a flurry of names and linkages at you before retreating back into the shadows. I was left with a sense that more important and interesting events and repercussions were taking place off-screen. This does become tedious as the film moves forward.

That said, the highlight of the film is seeing Hoffman and Redford applying their logic, using stealth and coercion to eliminate the possibilities and zone in on the truth. However, these scenes are few and far between and the rest of the running time is made up of fairly stolid political drama and intrigue and newsroom scenes. Possibly the film is a victim of its own success, as I sense its influence on all sorts of TV and film, meaning that certain scenes and characters have lost their impact and feel rather humdrum (the pot plant on the window sill; the "Deep Throat" character; the compromised duplicity of some informers, typewriters clacking for exposition etc.)

Overall, a good film, but I don't know that it has stood the test of time.

After the flawed but fascinating 'Parallax View', Alan J. Pakula learns from his mistakes, and delivers a more logical and satisfying story in 'All the Presidents Men'. Everything about this movie is of the highest quality. Another bravado turn from cinematographer Gordon Willis creates a world of intensely glaring lights and ominously inky shadows. Subtle and realistic performances from the entire cast create a believable pressroom atmosphere of rivalry, idealism and integrity.

The story has been the prototype for every conspiracy thriller since, establishing all the motifs that would eventually be exhausted by 'The X-Files' and become cliché. The narrative flows smoothly, and Goldman does an excellent job of reigning in a potentially incomprehensible plot line, a feat that won him a much-deserved Oscar. The story does, however, slow down in spots, becoming repetitious, and could have benefited from a little judicious pruning.

An excellent movie, that not only sheds light on a historic episode without the usual glossy spin, but highlights the pitiful condition of modern journalism, a fall from grace that in time will prove to far more terrifying and long reaching than anything perpetrated by Nixon and his cronies.

well i don't come from USA. so i knew very little about this whole controversy. so i saw this film looking to get some answers. midway in the film i found myself searching for answers elsewhere. the movie get so complex and so dull in between that u lose patience to complete it. i though did manage to stick till the end, but i was left confused. there are so many names ....so many of them, that u eventually drop the significance of few in between. new names keep cropping up in the middle. suddenly they become too significant. and the ending was not up to mark too. should have ended with some notes on screen explaining in lumsome what actually happened and how it all ended. i would say it was a disappointment for me. could have been better.

Hard to follow. Even with a working knowledge of the subject.

Story arc doesn't cover things, leaving the final scene of the movie to wrap up too much.

Sound mix awful and all over the place on the version I watched.

Far from a seminal movie as some seem to claim.